IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Y2K ?

Mike Cherry cherry at GENOME.STANFORD.EDU
Fri Apr 16 19:08:05 EST 1999


> 
> Anyone know the answer to this?:
> - Dave
> 
> > From: "Coleman, Mike" <COLEMANMI at phibred.com>
> > To: matthews at greengenes.cit.cornell.edu
> > Cc: "Hardisty, Marvin" <HARDISTY at phibred.com>
> > Subject: Dave, id AceDB year 2000 compliant?
> > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:41:12 -0500
> > 
> > Dave,
> > 
> >   We are running this on Solaris 2.6.  Do you know if AceDB itself is
> > compliant?  Please advise.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Mike Coleman
> 

Richard answered this in January.


An archive for this newsgroup is at:

http://genome-www.stanford.edu/Saccharomyces/AT-acedbbiosci.html


The answer is:

Subject: Re: Y2K bugs in Ace 
From: Richard Durbin <rd at sanger.ac.uk> 
Date: 26 Jan 1999 23:02:55 -0000 

I don't believe there are Y2K problems in acedb code.  Obviously the underlying
operating system must be Y2K compliant because it makes system calls.  Dates
are stored internally in an acedb-specific format that knows the precision of
the date-time, e.g. day only, seconds, month only etc.  These always write
out as 4 digit years, but the parser will recognise 2 digit years, and map
values greater than 50 to 19xx, 50 or less to 20xx.  So there is a potential
Y2050 problem there if you use that feature in data.  It looks like we set
a maximum year of 2053 anyway, so there is a serious Y2053 problem.

Richard




More information about the Acedb mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net